I've asked for your views and honest science regarding human mobility, but you only respond with silly questions.

Again the question: Why won't people be able to move out of the way of extremely slow rising seawater levels over the next thousand years or so? They've always managed to do so for the past two to three thousand years of recorded history. Why not in the future?

I attempted to answer your question.

1) You are mistaken to think that sea level rise will be extremely slow over the next thousand years. A number of studies have shown that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, and a few studies have raised the real possibility of catastrophic rates of sea level rise within the lifetime of our youngest children.

2) The denier community is getting smaller and smaller. As my linked articles showed, a number of coastal cities are already planning how they will deal with rising sea levels (as well as land subsidence, etc).

I'm not a climate scientist. Neither are you. If you think your spoon-fed insight is superior to that of most climate scientists, the IPCC and just about all western governments, you need to convince them, not me. And when they all finally admit that you're right, why then I will have no option but to agree that you are indeed right.

I have some respect for your courage to keep holding to your denier position, especially when so many fellow deniers have treated to a safer "skeptic" position.

It's not a question of my doing primary research or convincing people whose livelihood is built around research grants looking to validate AGW theory. It is a question of reading with an open mind what data is published and trying to draw intelligent conclusions. It was warmer in the past many times than today when CO2 has been less. That is a fact. Cooling does occur when air moves moisture. That is a fact. The IPCC models have very poorly predicted climate. That is a fact. Climate scientists have been caught fiddling data to produce a desired result. That is a fact. I could go on, but just as one hopefully thinking person who has done primary research published in journals, I think I can understand how to interpret data, and my interpretation is that AGW theory is speculative at best and a fraud at worst. On that basis spending trillions making energy more expensive is lunacy, and frankly immoral since it makes the poorest people on the planet poorer and contributes to their suffering.

That is why I am a skeptic. And when you call me a "denier" you are merely engaging in another ad hominem and simply invalidating your own argument. It is not me that is denying the fact that as CO2 has steadily increased over the last 115 years while the trend of warming that started in 1750 has declined. It is you who is denying that. It is not me denying that the IPCC models have failed, you are. It is not me who is denying that tidal records for 70 years show no sea level rise, you are. It is not me denying all the research showing the benefits in the Sahel showing greening, you are.

I'm a skeptic of AGW because the science behind it is so weak in places and contradicted in others. You're a denier because you overlook or deny data that doesn't fit your meme.

Them are just the facts....

__________________http://delfin.talkspot.com
When stupidity is a sufficient explanation, there is no need to appeal to another cause.
- Ulmann's Razor

All it will take is one caldera to change all the supposed sea level rise personally I don't see any actual rises globally . The regional rises are more likely errors in the sensing/ measuring equipment I personally don't know or care. The people will move or build more houseboats .

It says that since it was warmer, or as warm during the 1000's and again during the Medieval Warming period that atmospheric CO2 is largely irrelevant to warming. It says that current concentrations are not producing the effects modeled, likely because the climate sensitivity values for the impact of doubling CO2 over a century is pretty far off base, as Hans von Storch and many others suggest. It says that instead of water vapor always being a positive forcing as expected, it can be a negative feedback depending on wind velocity, atmospheric pressure, etc. It says that if you take the last 70 years of tidal measurements from around the world and project the measured sea level rise over the next 85 years mean sea level will increase by about 1/2 inch. It says that based on ice core data, CO2 enrichment appears to be an effect and not a cause of warming. It says that the the total cost of efforts to reduce carbon agreed upon in Paris are vastly greater than the costs of mitigating the effect of continued carbon growth portrayed by even the most extreme of warmist scare stories. It says that based on prior solar cycles, we may be entering another Maunder Minimum scenario that will make us all go out and buy a 57 Chev to try to increase carbon outputs in the hope they will forestall another mini ice age, as the President's science adviser says has already been happening.

Stepping out of physics and chemistry and switching to psychology, honest science says that when a group of people meet contrary data with ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, and narcissistic arrogance, the science says you are dealing with small, closed minds coupled with possible personality disorders.

That's just a broad overview, mind you, but it covers the basics.

Let's get started.

The MWP was a northern hemisphere phenomenon. This has been documented by Brian Fagan in The Great Warming. It is also quite clear in the paleoclimatology record.

+++++++++++++++++

You are quote mining and misinterpreting von Storch. This is him in an interview 2 weeks ago. (Google translated the text.)

Quote:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: For example?

von Storch: The AFD writes, climate models are wrong, which is why climate change is unproven - that's a frightening unsuspecting attitude. On one hand, the models do have shortcomings , they are only a reduced image of reality, but they provide useful results . In addition, there are many other indications of a man-made climate change, which are ignored by the AFD. Ironically, the AFD seems so indeed erroneously accept the thesis that the current climate change policy would be logical and compelling, if the models would be perfect. But clear waste from the science of politics there is not just.

Climate scientists have been caught fiddling data to produce a desired result. That is a fact.

Nope. The Climategate zombie lurches on in your mythology

...when you call me a "denier" you are merely engaging in another ad hominem and simply invalidating your own argument.

In your own words:

True, CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and temperatures are increasing, if at a slowing rate. It is also true that ambulances are always present when major car accidents occur. Concluding that CO2 is causative of increased temperatures is about as sound as concluding that ambulances cause car accidents. Hard scientific data will sort this out, and right now, that data suggests that arguing that human emissions of CO2 are responsible for warming is an increasingly asinine position to take.

Of course the Lia was a regional thing just cooling half of the planet . If that were actually true the Antarctic ice sheet would have melted completely. All the heat to warm the planet when the north half was so cold had to go somewhere but it doesn't fit into the gw meme therefore it was only regional where is your proof that the southern half warmed enough to counter all hat cooling?

True, CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and temperatures are increasing, if at a slowing rate. It is also true that ambulances are always present when major car accidents occur. Concluding that CO2 is causative of increased temperatures is about as sound as concluding that ambulances cause car accidents. Hard scientific data will sort this out, and right now, that data suggests that arguing that human emissions of CO2 are responsible for warming is an increasingly asinine position to take.

So, are you in denial about your denial?

Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of cause and effect. If entity A is alleged to cause entity B, the when A intensifies, logically so should B. Increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 should cause an increase in the rate of warming. That isn't happening. The reverse is happening. In statistics, that makes these two entities negatively correlated, because as one (CO2) goes up, the other (rate of warming) goes down, which is just one way of saying you have a belief in something that is poorly supported by reality.

Now, one possibility is that as CO2 increases, the negative feedbacks within the climate system also increase, putting the brakes on further warming. That would be consistent with what is observed, but sadly for warmists, would also blow their belief system out of the water.

__________________http://delfin.talkspot.com
When stupidity is a sufficient explanation, there is no need to appeal to another cause.
- Ulmann's Razor

Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of cause and effect. If entity A is alleged to cause entity B, the when A intensifies, logically so should B. Increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 should cause an increase in the rate of warming. That isn't happening. The reverse is happening. In statistics, that makes these two entities negatively correlated, because as one (CO2) goes up, the other (rate of warming) goes down, which is just one way of saying you have a belief in something that is poorly supported by reality.

Now, one possibility is that as CO2 increases, the negative feedbacks within the climate system also increase, putting the brakes on further warming. That would be consistent with what is observed, but sadly for warmists, would also blow their belief system out of the water.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of cause and effect. If entity A is alleged to cause entity B, the when A intensifies, logically so should B. Increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 should cause an increase in the rate of warming. That isn't happening. The reverse is happening. In statistics, that makes these two entities negatively correlated, because as one (CO2) goes up, the other (rate of warming) goes down, which is just one way of saying you have a belief in something that is poorly supported by reality.